[Ryan S.]

I have an idea for determining how much one should deviate from historical norms. Basically, each part of the kit would be scored on historical accuracy( the less accuracy, the higher the score). It would also take into account the character who is using the gear. So a super authentic Saracen bow would receive a high score in the hands of a Yorkshire archer. This quantifying of deviation would be useful to help people decide how creative they want to be with their kit. Also, it would allow people to say how much more one movie's costumes are than other's. Thoughts?

[Robin Smith]

To be completely honest, I don't think it is workable. To begin with, one man's "accurate" is another man's "not good enough". How far down the rabbit hole are you willing to go? Is an Albion "accurate" or is it "not accurate" because its not made with bloom iron and forged?

It's just that calling something "historically accurate" is very subjective, and not something that can be easily quantified. Arguably, if it's not an antique it's gonna be inaccurate in some elements, even if it's just something esoteric like the metallurgy. But metallurgy matters to some people. So what might seem a minor quibble to you, could be a very important detail to me. That's why quantifying would be impossible.

Not trying to shoot you down, just seems this isn't something one could "keep score" on IMHO...

[Matthew Amt]

Yup, what Robin said. Only it's not a rabbit hole, it's a meat grinder! Everything is so very subjective, you'd never get any agreement on what "scored" what.

For example, an expert armorer makes a Roman Imperial-Gallic type C helmet. He has the bog ore collected in southern France, has it smelted in a Roman-style smelter, forges out the bloom and raises the helmet using original Roman tools while wearing hand-made Roman clothing. Copies the museum piece with a micrometer. BUT he rivets on the neckguard. To me, that would rate as "unacceptable" for use in my group. However, we DO accept *some* Indian-made helmets, in spite of the fact that they are welded from several pieces of mild steel, the cheekpieces are too long, the brass is too yellow, the embossed features are generally over-emphasized or a little out of place, and the inside is painted black. Visually, it's pretty much right! Would we like better? Sure! But anything "available" would be custom-made and several times the cost, and a longer wait, and who knows? It might show up with a riveted-on neckguard!

I don't think a quantified rating system will work, sorry!

Matthew

[Bartek Strojek]

Well, I guess that every element mentioned by Matthew and Robin could be scored from 0, 0.5 or 1 as far as probability etc. of it occurring in originals...

So riveted neck guard - 0 because "no way"

Too long cheekpiece - 0.5 for "well, maybe, "

And metallurgy - 1, because "spot on"

And with all aspects, one could form some ranking, I guess, it would be rather tiring thouhg.